Jimmy Deenihan (Kerry North, Fine Gael)

I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution. I remember making a fairly detailed contribution in 1989 when the Land Commission Dissolution Bill was before the House. We were not restricted to 20 minutes then and I may have spoken for a somewhat longer time.

I did an in-depth study at that time on the Land Commission and what it meant to this country, how important it was to a large number of farming families and the very significant work it achieved from its establishment to its dissolution. The Land Commission had not acquired any land since 1983, but it served its purpose and then outlived it. When I was in the Department, I examined land policy of the time and produced a document, Towards a Sustainable Land Policy, which is probably somewhere in the archives. We considered the dissolution of the Land Commission, its replacement, whether there was a need for a land authority, as suggested at the time, and other initiatives which might be introduced to encourage the mobility of land, passing it from one generation to the next. We also investigated whether there were other initiatives which could be put in place to encourage the consolidation of land and enlarge holdings. Schemes such as early farm retirement and farm insulation served to encourage consolidation, enlargement and the transfer of land from one generation to the next. They have been very effective.

The Opposition at that time felt the Land Commission should be revived and restored, a view that was coming through across the country. I visited different parts of the country and people said that if Fianna Fáil was returned to power in 1997, one of its objectives would be to restore the Land Commission. However, that never happened. Dan McCarthy was a great campaigner in County Westmeath for the retention of the Land Commission. People will possibly call for its revival in this current debate. It served its purpose and was very effective but now we must examine other ways of encouraging land mobility.

I welcome the Bill because it provides an incentive to people to own their land, which is everyone's ambition. In some cases, people may find it difficult to buy out the land at this stage but the incentive in the legislation is very good. It is a pity, however, that it is not a 50% buy-out, to provide even more of an incentive but I am sure that even as it stand, there is a lot of interest in it. People seem to have more money these days, although that might not apply to the farming community as much as to those involved in building, industry and other areas of the economy.

At one time land was very important from a farming point of view. If a farmer got extra land from the Land Commission, it meant that he or she could increase the number of cattle on the farm and the capacity to grow crops. Now land is very important from a development point of view. Many farmers are making their living, sending their children to college and buying property elsewhere through the sale of land. They are selling off sites in rural areas and, even more so, sites close to urban areas. There is a new focus on land and its use.

As the Minister of State knows, the dairy industry is going through a very bad period and is not likely to recover to the level at which it operated in the past. Dairy farms will have to get bigger if they are to survive. At present, most dairy farmers operating under a 50,000 gallon quota are making just enough to pay for the running of the farm, not to glean an income or support a family. Therefore, farmers have to work part time and often their partners have to have permanent jobs.

The farming sector has changed totally. The level of income from farming has dropped drastically in recent years. The price of a gallon of milk, for example, is the same now as it was in 1978, while farm inflation has increased by approximately 500% in the same period. This is a very difficult time for farming and farmers. While the price of beef has improved to some extent, the outlook for beef farming is not good either. Survival will be challenging and difficult because after the next round of WTO talks there will be more beef from countries like Brazil, Argentina and third world countries on the Irish market, creating competition. Approximately nine out of every ten animals produced in this country are exported. Competition will increase in the market, particularly when Poland gets its act together because it has the capacity to produce considerably more dairy, livestock and grain products.

The farming market will become far more competitive in the future and it is important to refer to this in light of the Bill. When the Land Commission was established in 1881, the scenario was totally different. At that time, land was everything. It provided food and the only means for a family to make money, by selling produce. The situation today is different. Land is important now in terms of its value for development, through the selling of sites and so on.

The last buy-out deal in 1992 was at 50% and perhaps the Minister of State would consider increasing the buy-out terms in this Bill from 25% to 50%. That would provide more of an incentive to people. If the higher buy-out rate was offered, the uptake of the scheme would increase. The timescale for buy-out availability, at only six months from the enactment of the legislation, should be extended to a year. There should also be a comprehensive public information campaign launched to ensure that those people who are still paying annuities are aware of the buy-out scheme. I know of a person living in San Francisco who owned a farm near my home. That individual was not aware of the last buy-out scheme in 1992. He has bought out his annuity since then, but because he was living in the United States and letters did not reach him, he did not know about the scheme and as a result, could not avail of it. That is just one example and there may be many others. For that reason it is important that the Department tries to reach as many people as possible.

I welcome the proposal in the Bill that all low land annuities should be written off. However, Fine Gael had a briefing meeting with the IFA some time ago and that organisation suggested that the level of annuity to be written off should be increased from €200 to €400. I would suggest that an increase to €500 is appropriate and would benefit approximately 5,500 farmers. Given that there is a cost for collecting annuities, where they are very low a write-off makes sense as it will result in savings in administration, follow-up and so forth. Perhaps the Minister will refer to this issue in his reply, given that it was also raised by several other Deputies.

The IFA, in its discussions with my party, expressed concern that the Bill gives stronger rights to the Department of Agriculture and Food to withhold payments due to its members in lieu of land annuities owed. In other words, payments that would be due through the single payment scheme or REPS could be offset against land annuities or arrears. I ask the Minister of State to clarify this in his reply because the IFA argued that such action could create hardship in some cases, particularly for farmers in financial difficulties. Another suggestion from the IFA is that safeguards should be put in place to ensure that farmers who cannot avail of this buy-out scheme are given the opportunity to restructure their repayments so that they are in a better position to make annuity payments in the future.

The division of commonage is an important issue which poses some difficulties. I realise that the Land Commission was involved in facilitating the division of commonage, though I understand that only one or two of its officials are engaged in such activity at present. However, when the Land Commission is completely disbanded, there will be no other agency to facilitate such divisions and because of the celebrated Mayo High Court case, unless there is total agreement between all shareholders, then the commonage cannot be divided. If 15 people have rights on the commonage and one person objected to that, it could not be divided. Perhaps the Minister of State, when replying, will refer to this issue.

What will happen to lands that came under the responsibility of the Land Commission? Will they now come under the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture and Food? What body will have responsibility for managing turbary rights to land that will not be claimed by anyone? There is a major tidying up job to be done. What body will do that? There are also fishing and other rights. What process would be involved in tidying up the management of such rights? This Bill will go some way towards tidying up the annuity issue. What will happen to land that is not covered by land annuities, no man's land? Will the Minister of State refer to that?

The Land Commission built embankments along the coastline to protect some of the land it acquired. I am aware of a few in north Kerry where the Land Commission maintained the embankments. In some cases trusts were set up to maintain the embankments while in other cases they were not, but the Land Commission always maintained them. Now that the Land Commission has been dissolved there is no body responsible for what were its functions in this regard. I recall moving an amendment on Committee Stage of a Bill when the Minister, Deputy Cullen, had responsibility for the OPW. I asked him would the OPW take over responsibility for these embankments and he gave a commitment that it would, but that has not happened in many cases.

I could give the Minister of State details of some of the embankments of which I am aware. There is one on Carrig Island in Ballylongford where the sea has covered a huge area of land and there is another adjacent to it close to Mortara in Ballylongford. A landbank was acquired by IDA Ireland and land was acquired by the Land Commission at that location, but that is being eroded because no authority is maintaining that embankment, the work on which was of a high quality. Those are a few issues to which I would like the Minister of State to refer.

I welcome the fact that the Bill will facilitate the transfer of land used by sports clubs and community groups which currently operate Land Commission trust properties at the request of the trustees. It is proposed to simplify conveyancing procedures of trust properties to ease transfer of ownership by removing the legal and financial burdens from trustees. Approximately 500 of these local trusts are in existence, almost half of which are used by local GAA and other sports clubs. There are about 12 of them in north Kerry alone. I acknowledge the work of the Minister in ensuring that process will be regularised, and that is only right.

Apart from GAA clubs, the balance of trusts would be mainly turbary and cow park trusts established to provide some communal land for the keeping of animals by those in rural communities who did not own their own agricultural holdings. Deputy Johnny Brady referred to cow parks in particular. He has more experience of these in Meath than we have in Kerry. In Listowel there is the cows lawn where the people of the town could keep a cow long ago. This is still an open area. I am sure that probably the town park in Listowel is still governed under this scheme. There are open areas and cow parks, and, as Deputy Johnny Brady said, it is important that these are not sold off for building or other purposes by local authorities as they are a source of revenue. They should be kept as much as possible for the benefit of the people.

In the case of sporting trusts, because sporting organisations do not own the properties, they are reluctant to commit to significant development of their investments in trust properties. As a result many properties are not maximising their potential benefit to the community in which they are situated. These trusts have given rise to problems to some extent. They have helped to get around the issue of national lottery funding. These trusts have not created much difficulty but in some instances it has been awkward for clubs to draw down national lottery funding because of their existence and in some cases because the clubs did not have a record of the trust and the original members of it who may have since died. This has created difficulties for some clubs.

I welcome the Bill. I hope that there will be a significant take-up of this offer. The Minister of State on Committee Stage should consider increasing the percentage from 25% to 50%, if possible, which would create a greater incentive to take up the offer. It would be preferable for the Minister of State to get rid of these annuities, if possible, once and for all and to clean up this area. I thank him for his attention.

See this speech in context